Filed: Oct. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-211 Andreas v. Holder BIA Brennan, IJ A088 778 629 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE N
Summary: 13-211 Andreas v. Holder BIA Brennan, IJ A088 778 629 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NO..
More
13-211
Andreas v. Holder
BIA
Brennan, IJ
A088 778 629
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 16th day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ARIF CHANDRA ANDREAS,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-211
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon (Robert Duk-Hwan Kim,
24 on the brief), New York, N.Y.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
28 Director; Kerry A. Monaco, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Arif Chandra Andreas, a native and citizen of
6 Indonesia, seeks review of a December 31, 2012, decision of
7 the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) June 17,
8 2011, denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Arif
10 Chandra Andreas, No. A088 778 629 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2012),
11 aff’g No. A088 778 629 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 17, 2011).
12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
13 and procedural history of this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Guan v. Gonzales,
16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards
17 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513
19 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 An applicant like Andreas, who does not base his claim
21 on past persecution, must establish a well-founded fear of
22 future persecution, on account of race, religion,
23 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
2
1 political opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(A). To
2 establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, an
3 alien may show that he was singled out for persecution or
4 there exists a pattern or practice of persecution of
5 similarly situated people. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii).
6 To establish a pattern or practice of persecution,
7 Andreas must demonstrate that the harm to a group
8 constitutes persecution, is perpetrated or tolerated by
9 state actors, and is “so systemic or pervasive as to amount
10 to a pattern or practice of persecution.” In re A- M—, 23
11 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005); see also Mufied v.
12 Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) (accepting the BIA’s
13 standard as a reasonable one, while noting that “[w]ithout
14 further elaboration [the standard does not make clear] how
15 systemic, pervasive, or organized persecution must be before
16 the Board would recognize it as a pattern or practice”).
17 The evidence in the record is insufficient to show a
18 pattern or pattern of persecution against Christians living
19 in Indonesia. Because Andreas provided only generalized
20 testimony regarding his fear of future persecution, the
21 primary evidence supporting his claim consists of country
22 reports. The agency did not err in relying heavily on the
23 most recent evidence in the record, the State Department’s
3
1 2010 International Religious Freedom Report, which
2 identified several isolated incidents involving restrictions
3 on the activities of Christian churches but also “numerous
4 areas of improvements in religious freedom,” including
5 inter-faith activities and the prosecution of individuals
6 responsible for religiously-motivated violence. Certified
7 Administrative Record at 176; see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
8 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (the
9 weight accorded to the applicant’s evidence “lies largely”
10 within the discretion of the agency (alteration and internal
11 quotation marks omitted)). Despite Andreas’s argument to
12 the contrary, this evidence does not establish persecution
13 that is “systemic or pervasive” so as to constitute a
14 pattern or practice. See Santoso v. Holder,
580 F.3d 110,
15 112 n.1 (2d Cir. 2009)(explaining that, despite lack of
16 guidance from BIA regarding how to evaluate a pattern or
17 practice claim, “where the BIA explicitly discussed the
18 pattern or practice claim and the record includes
19 documentary evidence regarding the conditions in
20 petitioner’s homeland, we are able to reach the conclusion
21 that the agency’s decision was not erroneous”).
22 Andreas also argues that the BIA failed to consider his
23 claim that he would be persecuted on account of his
4
1 membership in a particular social group—“Indonesian Muslims
2 who have converted to Christianity.” While the BIA did not
3 use the words “particular social group” in its decision, the
4 BIA’s determination applies equally to Andreas’s claims of
5 persecution based on his conversion.
6 Because Andreas was unable to show that he had a well-
7 founded fear of persecution based on his religion and
8 conversion needed to make out an asylum claim, he was
9 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard for
10 withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder,
11 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED.
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
17
18
5
